You can’t live in the community that wants to become Orange County’s newest city, unless you’re 55–or married to someone who is.
Leisure World-Laguna Hills, with the requisite governmental and voter approval, could become a city after a special election next March.
This tiny unincorporated island of about 18,000 senior citizens would become California’s first city in which, aside from a few maintenance workers’ quarters, there is no housing for people younger than 55.
A Local Agency Formation Commission study that will determine if Leisure World’s cityhood is feasible–and constitutional–is scheduled to be finished shortly. The county and city are negotiating boundaries, and the proposed city still has to offer up a new name and a slate of council candidates.
“Right now, our voice in the county is very quiet,” Leisure World resident Bob Ring said. “We want to have a say.”
It would not be, cityhood proponents say, an age-restricted city, which they agree would be discriminatory and wrong.
But the California civil code allows communities to restrict age if the housing is designed–with ramps and lowered light switches and countertops–to meet the physical needs of seniors.
And while there are no areas currently where a young person would be permitted to live, undeveloped land outside the Leisure World walls, could, at some point, become homes for young people.
“I’m not aware of any prohibition (against Leisure World’s proposed city),” said assistant county chief executive officer Mike Ruane. “It’s an interesting and unique situation.”
If successful, this would be a city unlike any other.
The new Leisure World would be what Ring called a city of “super conservatives” who oppose the proposed El Toro airport, oppose paying cable-television franchise taxes, oppose most development on nearby streets and oppose just about anything that disrupts the status quo.
Its new city manager, supposing the person is younger than 55, would be unqualified for residency.
In this new city, the birthrate would be zero, unless you count the bunnies on the grounds and the horses at the stables.
A new city council, which would have a yearly budget of just more than $1 million, would oversee patches of city property outside the Leisure World walls–eight strips of commercial land, three small senior residential communities and three vacant lots. The current Leisure World governmental structure, an organization of mutuals or homeowners associations with a yearly budget of more than $60 million, would govern inside the walls.
It would be a city that contracts for most of its services–police, fire, water, sewage, animal control, etc.–with the county or private providers. It would be the first city in the county to pay a revenue neutrality fee–in this case, $405,000 for seven years–to offset the monetary loss the county will incur when the new city keeps its tax revenues.
It would exist on property taxes and sales tax from commercial zones that now include a Home Depot, a Vons and a Stater Bros.
“To the average citizen, it’s not going to be different at all,” said Betty Hohwiesner, of Leisure World Residents for Incorporation. “The garbage will get picked up. The mail will be delivered. The police will come when you call.”
The residents don’t seem concerned about a legal challenge.
“Of course anyone could move in (outside the walls) if there were housing available,” Ring said. “What incentive would there be for anyone to challenge the law? What young person would want to live here?
“But if you want to test the law, go ahead. You’ll lose.”
Leisure World nearly became part of Laguna Hills in 1989, but the senior voters inside the walls overwhelmingly shot down the initiative.
The Leisure World counterpart in Seal Beach was built within that city’s boundaries and operates like any other homeowners association.
In Laguna Hills, cityhood seems to be more popular. Proponents got the required 26 percent of registered voters to sign a petition in favor of incorporation.
But not everyone is on board.
“We would have two levels of government (one inside and one outside the gates),” said Helen Insweiler, of the Leisure World Residents Against Incorporation. “Not everybody likes the directors we have now.”
One of the few remaining sticking points is a 10-acre parcel outside the Leisure World walls. Developer Philip Bettencourt owns that land and wants to build as many as 90 townhomes for people of any age that want to buy them. But he doesn’t want his land to be included within the new city boundaries.
“We don’t require municipal services that a city would offer,” said Bettencourt, who plans to file a formal request to be excluded. “Our residents (given they would live outside the walls) would likely be shut out of the political process.”
LAFCO will make the final decision about the boundaries and on whether Bettencourt’s property is included.
Another undecided issue is the name.
It could become known as the Place Formerly Known As Leisure World, if its cityhood drive is successful.
Suggestions for the new name have started to trickle in to the community relations office, though the official contest won’t start until July. Golden Hills, one person said, would be pretty. Or how about sticking with Leisure World, someone else asked.
Someone even went as far as suggesting Viagra City.
